An ex-policeman has been arrested by detectives investigating alleged child abuse at a former children's home in Jersey.

The 50-year-old, who has not been named, was held in Jersey on suspicion of "serious crimes" at the Haut de la Garenne home and elsewhere in Jersey, a police spokeswoman said. A "number of searches" are also being carried out in Jersey, she added.

It is understood the man is a former Jersey police officer who worked as a volunteer at the home before leaving the force to work with the Jersey children's service.

His arrest follows the discovery of 27 children's teeth in cellars and in a water cistern beneath the Victorian building, which closed as a children's home in 1986.

At least 30 fragments of bone have also been recovered, some of which had been cut, suggesting "homicide or unexplained death", according to Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper, the man leading the inquiry.

Forensic tests on the teeth and bones which are currently being carried out in the UK will determine whether police launch a formal murder investigation.

Police have taken statements from 116 people they believe to have been victims of sexual or physical abuse at the home and in other institutions on the island in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Some of the alleged victims have said they were tortured and abused in the cellars where the teeth and bones have been found.

A total of 70 suspects have been identified, all of whom are likely to be arrested or questioned during the course of the investigation.

The man arrested at 6.40am on Thursday was the fourth to be held since the inquiry began more than a year ago.

Three other men have been charged with sexual abuse offences. Gordon Claude Wateridge, 76, originally from Croydon, south London, is charged with three offences of indecent assault on girls under 16 between 1969 and 1979 while he was warder at Haut de la Garenne.

Claude Donnelly, 68, of St Brelade, Jersey, is charged with raping and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl on Jersey between 1971 and 1974. Mr Donnelly is not connected to Haut de la Garenne.

Michael Aubin, 45, is charged with indecently assaulting a seven-year-old boy and a 13-year-old boy and one count of buggery on an eight-year-old boy, all between January 1, 1977 and December 31, 1980. The charges relate to three different children at the home. Mr Aubin, of Portswood, Southampton, will next appear before Jersey magistrates on June 30.

The abuse investigation on Jersey has shifted from the children's home Haut de la Garenne to a new site, reportedly a Second World War bunker.

Police, who are probing around 100 allegations of abuse, will reveal details later of the fresh site to the east of the island.

Investigations at Haut de la Garenne started in February after the discovery of what was initially believed to be part of a child's skull, but was later thought to be wood or part of a coconut. Following the find, scores of people came forward claiming they were drugged, raped and beaten.

Police excavated four secret underground chambers at the site, referred to as punishment rooms by some victims, and found shackles, a large bloodstained bath and children's teeth.

Police have also recovered at least 30 charred human bone fragments and in one cellar found the haunting message "I've been bad for years and years" scrawled on a wooden post.

Of the bone fragments unearthed, tests have found that some were cut while others were burnt, indicating that murder had taken place, with the victims' bodies possibly cremated in a fireplace.

Police say there are more than 40 suspects. Three men have been charged with sex abuse offences as part of the historical inquiry.

Gordon Wateridge, 76, originally from Croydon, south London, is charged with three offences of indecent assault on girls under 16 between 1969 and 1979 while he was working at the home.

Claude Donnelly, 68, of St Brelade, is charged with raping and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl on Jersey between 1971 and 1974. Donnelly is not connected to Haut de la Garenne.

Michael Aubin, 45, is charged with indecently assaulting a seven-year-old boy and a 13-year-old boy and one count of a serious sexual offence on an eight-year-old boy, all between January 1 1977 and December 31 1980. The charges relate to three different children at the home.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5isweBDs75rZs3ROdZB5qQLOKFwwg

Haut de la Garenne: Why abuse on this level could happen again
By DEMETRIOUS PANTON
Last updated at 23:29 25 February 2008

My mouth went dry and my fists clenched when I heard about the remains found in Jersey.

I felt sorrow and rage that police are once again belatedly investigating a huge paedophile ring based on care home kids, and expect to dig up more bodies.

A ring of evil men exploited the most vulnerable children imaginable for up to 40 years, and no one stopped them.

Scroll down for more...

Haut de la Garenne: Despite numerous cries for help, children continued to be abused in the Jersey home for decades
Read more...

As police dig up a sealed basement at Haut de la Garenne, could the cellar locals refer to as 'Colditz' hide a mass grave?

It is emerging now that the victims repeatedly begged for help. Why did no one listen?

I have a pretty good idea why not, given how viciously the politically-correct establishment silenced me about the similar paedophile ring which raped me.

I was sexually abused by two male workers in children's homes in Islington, North London, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I was unusual, a kid who did not seek escape through drugs or suicide.

But I did run away and never again attended school. I spent my days at my local library, educated myself and went on to university, desperately hoping I could make someone listen. No-one did.

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, I wrote reports on my abusers, demanding an inquiry.

In 1992, I even lobbied Margaret Hodge's office - she was then council leader - and met her stand-in, Stephen Twigg, now also a Labour MP. He did nothing.

The truth only emerged thanks to a three-year newspaper campaign which revealed that all of Islington's 12 children's homes were run by, or included, staff who were paedophiles, child pornographers or pimps.

How did this come about? Child care was - and remains - underpaid and undervalued. Sadists easily acquire jobs when no one else wants them.

But there was another insidious factor in Islington - one which I fear leaves other children at equal risk today.

Scroll down for more...

Sex attacker Edward Paisnel abused many children before convicted and was a regular visitor at the children's home

The far-Left council had actively recruited men who claimed to be gay to run its homes, and declared that "gays" did not even need references or professional training or experience.

But the men who flocked forward were not gay - they were paedophiles.

A 1995 Government-ordered inquiry confirmed that no action was taken against these evil men because "the equal opportunities environment, driven from the personnel perspective, became a positive disincentive for bad practice".

In plain English, anyone who raised abuse concerns about the men running its children's homes was "anti gay".

And I was written off as "insane".

In 2003, when Tony Blair shocked many by appointing Margaret Hodge as Children's Minister, she tried to halt a media investigation into her Islington history by claiming I was "extremely disturbed".

She eventually had to apologise to me in the High Court. I was by then a Government adviser, producing reports for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

In Jersey, the victims now coming forward are said to be furious that their earlier pleas for help were ignored. Murder was committed, but no one lifted a finger.

I have always believed only the surface of the corruption in Islington was scraped. An immensely brave social worker who blew the whistle on the scandal told me early on that other victims talked of children being killed. But they were too afraid to give details. None of those allegations was ever investigated.

Let us not kid ourselves that such horrors could never happen again. People may be more vigorously vetted, and complaints taken more seriously, but paedophiles can offend against hundreds before they acquire a criminal record because children are easy to intimidate and ensnare.

The Islington scandal should have shamed social workers out of naive political correctness, but it has not.

Children today in need of care are most likely to be placed with foster parents, rather than in homes.

That does not mean there is no risk, just that victims are more isolated. Consider how many councils now boast of their active commitment to recruiting gay foster carers.

Are they bright and brave enough to distinguish between genuine gay men - who would not dream of hurting children - and paedophiles who cynically hide behind the gay rights banner?

I am not convinced - I know of one foster care manager jailed in 2005 for the sexual abuse of boys in care.

Scandalously, the council responsible - one of Britain's most gay-friendly - has still held no inquiry into whether he was recruiting other paedophile friends as "carers".

Child abuse investigator to be replaced by child abuse sympathiser DCC Warcup from suspect force.
Why is Harper being replaced???
So this investigation can be 'terminated'?
DCC David Warcup is a known child abuse defender

Quote:

....Earlier it was announced that Mr Harper is to be replaced by Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup, who is currently Deputy Chief Constable of Northumbria, when he retires in August....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7497361.stm

Gay police officer to return to job after appeal win
From the Northern Echo, first published Thursday 22nd Feb 2001.

A GAY police officer is to return to work after his conviction for molesting a 16-year-old boy in a public toilet was overturned.

Sergeant David Jewell, 42, was arrested and charged with the sex attack on the teenager in Doncaster last year.

But the Court of Appeal has thrown out the conviction because of a flaw in the trial judge's summary of the case to the jury.

Sgt Jewell, from Newcastle, has asked to be reinstated to his £28,000-a-year job because his name is now clear. At a hearing before Northumbria's Chief Constable last week, Sgt Jewell was told he would be taken back on.

A force spokesman said: "He was convicted of a serious criminal offence and dismissed accordingly. However, once the conviction was overturned it is his right to be reinstated."

Sgt Jewell, who has previously complained to police after posters accusing him of being a paedophile appeared near his home, said: "The past two years have been the most difficult of my life. This ordeal has made me stronger and more prepared for any homophobic abuse I might get. The judge said I had been ill-advised in being open with the jury about my sexuality.

"He was effectively saying that once the jury knew I was gay, it was as good as saying I was guilty."

Sgt Jewell had served on the force for 24 years and been awarded two bravery commendations.

His reputation was destroyed when he was accused of trying to molest the teenager in a shopping centre.

http://www.policeabuseofpower.co.uk/1154/index.html
Naturally I was most unhappy that Mr. Oliver gave no assurances that fines would be collected - and that felons would pay the penalties of their crimes, so I immediately elected to take an official appeal to the Northumbria Police Authority (NPA) at the Gateshead Civic Centre. After lodging my appeal I was called to see Gateshead Supt. David Warcup on 5th August 1994 - he became most hostile when I expressed my fears regarding uncollected fines, he uttered words to the effect that I was the only one showing concern on this matter.

Six days after seeing Supt Warcup I received a letter from Force Headquarters saying I had to take a medical, as a one had been arranged for me, this had been arranged without my knowledge or consent…….at that time adrenaline was flowing freely and I could not have felt fitter. It was blatantly obvious their plan was to “pension-me-off” at all costs. I tried to find out who was responsible for arranging this medical but my efforts were in vain, but I feel confident of pointing the accusing finger at Supt. David Warcup.

The Police force with a £320 million budget – but no crime!
Nigel Green, 7 July 2008

NORTHUMBRIA Police is one of Britain’s biggest and busiest forces. It employs more than 4,000 officers and has a budget of around £320 million a year. Of that, more than £1 million is spent on its PR department. However, as a freelance journalist based in Northumberland, I am frequently amazed at how peaceful the area is – or at least if you believe the force’s press office. Despite the force now paying to staff its press office on Saturdays and Sundays, there are whole weekends when not one crime is released to the media.

It would be easy to argue that, as a journalist, I only believe in the police being more open because it will help me to do my job. Yes, that’s true.

But there is a more fundamental principle here and that is the age-old tradition of the police using the media to warn the public about what is going on – and to help them catch criminals.

For the last decade, I have campaigned for Northumbria Police to be more open with the public – i.e. the people who pay their wages.

I have collected hundreds of examples of serious crimes that have either not been released to the media or have been released weeks or even months later.

These include rapes, armed robberies and other horrendous attacks that have been kept hidden from the public.

After having a number of meetings with the Chief Constable Michael Craik over the years, I have been repeatedly promised the service would improve.

And yes, the budget for the press office, has been boosted – growing from £620,000 two years ago to the £1 million it now consumes.

There has also been a big increase in the number of stories about how senior officers are cutting crime figures.

Indeed, every time there is a horrific crime – such as a murder or a knife attack – the PR machine kicks into life with a quote from a senior officer stressing how “rare” such crimes are.

As well as stretching credibility, some of these statements are appallingly insensitive.
One chief inspector recently went as far as describing a double murder as an “isolated incident”.

In fact, it would appear they are cutting them so dramatically that one recent weekend saw not one crime worthy of being given out by Northumbria….
Not one incident from Friday afternoon to Monday morning that was worth putting on the tape-recorded telephone “voice-bank” which journalists now have to rely on for their information.

However, through an application under the Freedom of Information Act, I discovered there had been more than 4,800 incidents that weekend, including 161 serious crimes.
So why may you ask were none of these released to the public ?

A good question – and one I’ve been trying to have answered for nearly 10 years now.

In the past, I have taken the liberty of occasionally writing to or telephoning the senior officer concerned.

There then usually followed a reasonable and well-mannered debate in which they would either quote particular “operational reasons” or admit there was no good reason why the public had not been warned.

But now, following the publication of a series of articles in The Guardian, The Times, Press Gazette and other publications, I have been banned from even daring to ask such questions.

In a letter, Deputy Chief Constable David Warcup claims crimes are not released for “operational reasons” and the force does not have to “justify” such decisions. Needless to say, my correspondence on the issue now goes unanswered.

As a journalist with more than 23 years’ experience – most of it spent specialising in crime – I appreciate there are times when crimes might have to be held back for genuine “operational reasons”.

But there is no way they have to be held back in such huge numbers.
No, the simple truth is that the £1 million spent on Northumbria’s press office is more interested in promoting the image of the force’s senior officers.

My contacts tell me that, as part of that strategy, they have to reduce the “fear of crime” and, if that means telling the public less, then so be it.

Mr Warcup recently defended the force’s expenditure on PR by saying: “Although crime in Northumbria has fallen significantly in the past 10 years, our research shows that the perception of crime has not.

“We have therefore invested a significant amount in services which aim to make sure people have a better understanding of crime in their region.”
In other words, he is spending more money making sure people believe the crime figures they put out.

Ironically, since the publication of my comments, I have been contacted by a number of police contacts who agree with my stance.

Like me, they are not anti-police.

However, as well as being police officers, they are also members of the public – and taxpayers.

And, like me, they believe that, in a democracy, the likes of Mr Warcup should have to justify why the public are kept in the dark about what is happening in their area.

Very interesting when you consider there are areas of Newcastle you would only want to enter in an armoured vehicle, in fact some parts are virtual no-go areas. There are pubs with bullet holes in the walls, and some serious gangsters, yet no crime...........amazing!

Jersey murder inquiry 'unlikely'
The former care home has been the centre of a major police investigation
Remains of at least five children aged between four and 11 have been found in the search of a former children's home in Jersey, police have said.
However, officers told BBC Radio 4's Today there is unlikely to be a murder inquiry because an exact date cannot be put on the remains.
So far police have found 65 milk teeth and more than 100 bone fragments at the former Haut de la Garenne home.
About 100 people have alleged abuse between the early 1960s and 1986...........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7534350.stm

Something stinks here for sure._________________If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger

BBC News tonight said that politicians on Jersey don't want prosecutions and will be doing what they can to cover this up to protect Jersey's image.
Shysters.
Traitors.
They too should be prosecuted for 'obstructing the police', 'perverting the course of justice' or 'malfeasance' at the very least.

Jersey murder probe not ruled out
Police have refused to rule out a murder inquiry into the deaths of at least five children whose charred remains were found at a former children's home on Jersey.
Officers said bones and teeth uncovered by detectives investigating abuse at Haut de la Garenne belonged to children aged between four and 11.
Despite difficulty in dating the remains, police chief Lenny Harper insisted a murder inquiry could be launched if further forensic tests on the unidentified young victims were more conclusive.
Meanwhile, he said there were 18 key suspects in the wider abuse investigation and detectives were close to handing files on the priority suspects to island prosecutors.
To date, police have recovered a total of 65 milk teeth from the cellars at Haut de la Garenne, and experts believe they could only have come out after death because of their condition.
Tests to date the remains are still ongoing, but Mr Harper said results so far were not encouraging. Early carbon dating results gave an age bracket for some of the bone fragments of 1650-1950.
"If the dating remains as inconclusive as what we have had so far, a homicide inquiry is unlikely," he said. "If the dating is more specific, a homicide inquiry is a possibility."
More than 100 human bone fragments were found at the site, with one piece identified as coming from a child's leg and another from a child's ear.
Police are looking into around 97 allegations of abuse in Jersey dating back to the 1960s, and Mr Harper said a new victim had come forward in recent days to make allegations against one of the 18 priority suspects.
There is evidence that bodies were burned and buried at Haut de la Garenne, Mr Harper said, but there was still a possibility that the children died accidentally or through natural causes.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMdJ5UewgjjwT-E3OUEqKQ2ReZKg

Jersey police appoint new abuse inquiry chief
A new senior officer will take over the Jersey care home sexual abuse investigation within weeks, police announced today.
David Warcup, currently deputy chief constable of Northumbria, will take command of the inquiry when the island's deputy chief officer Lenny Harper retires next month.
Warcup, who takes over as the island's deputy chief officer, will be responsible for the strategy, policy and standards of the investigation......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/09/police.ukcrime
See below how Mr. Warcup helped a convicted indecent assaulter back into his job as a policeman!!!!!

Gay police officer to return to job after appeal win
From the Northern Echo, first published Thursday 22nd Feb 2001.
A GAY police officer is to return to work after his conviction for molesting a 16-year-old boy in a public toilet was overturned.
Sergeant David Jewell, 42, was arrested and charged with the sex attack on the teenager in Doncaster last year.
But the Court of Appeal has thrown out the conviction because of a flaw in the trial judge's summary of the case to the jury.
Sgt Jewell, from Newcastle, has asked to be reinstated to his £28,000-a-year job because his name is now clear. At a hearing before Northumbria's Chief Constable last week, Sgt Jewell was told he would be taken back on.
A force spokesman said: "He was convicted of a serious criminal offence and dismissed accordingly. However, once the conviction was overturned it is his right to be reinstated."
Sgt Jewell, who has previously complained to police after posters accusing him of being a paedophile appeared near his home, said: "The past two years have been the most difficult of my life. This ordeal has made me stronger and more prepared for any homophobic abuse I might get. The judge said I had been ill-advised in being open with the jury about my sexuality.
"He was effectively saying that once the jury knew I was gay, it was as good as saying I was guilty."
Sgt Jewell had served on the force for 24 years and been awarded two bravery commendations.
His reputation was destroyed when he was accused of trying to molest the teenager in a shopping centre.
He denied the charge at Doncaster Crown Court, but was convicted of indecent assault and became the first Northumbria officer to be placed on the Sex Offenders' Register
http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2001/2/22/178363.html

Quote:

Police sergeant is put on sex register.
From: Birmingham Evening Mail (England) | Date: February 26, 2000
A POLICE sergeant's career today lay in ruins after he was convicted of indecently assaulting a 16-year-old boy.
David Jewell, aged 41, based in Newcastle, was fined pounds 400 after a jury at Doncaster Crown Court found him guilty.
A spokesman for Northumbria Police said Jewell would now become the first officer in the force's history to be placed on the national sex offenders' register.
He said: "He has been suspended since his arrest in January......
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-60897360.html

An "old boy network" of officials is deliberately obstructing police investigating decades of alleged abuse at care homes in Jersey, according to the police officer who spearheaded the inquiry.

Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper angrily hit out at the figures who he says have engaged in a "day by day attack" on the inquiry team and the alleged victims of abuse at Haut de la Garenne and other island institutions.

In his most outspoken criticism of the Jersey authorities, Mr Harper told the Telegraph: "I can quite clearly say that the investigation is being held up. There are people on the island who just don't want us going down the route of this inquiry."

Mr Harper, who handed over the reins of the investigation to his successor on Thursday and officially leaves the Jersey force at the end of the month, also revealed fresh details of why he is so convinced that someone deliberately concealed the bones and teeth of five children, perhaps after murdering them.

But he has effectively conceded defeat in the quest to discover exactly how the children died, and who might have killed them, as forensic tests have failed to establish how old the bones are.

"If the test results on the final samples are no more accurate, then the answer is that something very nasty happened in there, we don't know exactly what, and because we can't prove who or what it was there is no possibility of a successful homicide investigation," he said.

Mr Harper has repeatedly said that because some of the 100 bone fragments had been cut, and because the 65 milk teeth found at the home had roots on them, meaning they did not come out naturally, children were either murdered or their bodies were illegally concealed.

But he has faced ridicule from some of the island's politicians, one of whom nicknamed him Lenny Henry, and who will, no doubt, be pleased to see the back of a policeman who has dared to break what he claims is Jersey's code of silence by digging up dark secrets from the past.

He said: "We have had problems dating the bones, but instead of people saying how unfortunate it is that the science can't be of more help to us, the politicians are saying 'this is a waste of time'. The fact that we're trying to bring people to justice for awful abuse is ignored and it's just a constant day by day attack on the inquiry and on the victims."

Police currently have 80 names of people suspected of physical and sexual abuse at Haut de la Garenne, three of whom have been charged and are awaiting trial.

More suspects would have been charged by now, said Mr Harper, if it hadn't been for delays in the island's legal system.

"We are walking through treacle at the moment," he said. "One file has been with the Attorney General's office since April 29 and it's still showing no signs of moving at the moment. It's been very frustrating.

"I don't think they are involved in child abuse, it's more like an old-boy network.

"The ordinary people of Jersey are overwhelmingly in favour of the inquiry, but how many expressions of support and sympathy for the victims have we heard from the politicians? None. They don't do sympathy for the victims."

Mr Harper, who expects the investigation to continue for another year, rubbished reports that the bones and teeth found at Haut de la Garenne could have been brought in among rubble infill during building work.

He said: "They had been taken from one part of the building to another and put on top of the hard, compact, undisturbed original floor of the cellars. They had been spread about and covered with a thin layer of topsoil. Why would someone do that unless there was a deliberate attempt to conceal them?"

Mr Harper said tests on soot found with the bones showed they had been burned in a furnace in another part of the building, while archaeological evidence suggested they had been concealed in the 1960s or 70s.

"People might say these killings must have happened in the 60s, but there may have been someone who had been working there for 30 or 40 years, who knew that something had happened, but even then it might not have been a homicide, it could have been that children died of natural causes, accidents or suicide. We just don't know."

A spokesman for the States of Jersey said ministers had made public statements of sympathy for the victims and given "unlimited resources" to the police investigation. The Attorney General's office denied there had been any deliberate delays.

William Bailhache, Jersey’s Attorney General, said: “It is absolutely incorrect to say that we have obstructed the administration of justice and quite improper to make such a comment.”

The very principled actions of Monsieur Syvret a member of the jersey government, helped to bring the haute de garenne issue to light. in an interview recently he reported that some people in jersey will not talk to him because they blame him for ruining the islands reputation and affecting the tourist trade!!! obviously childrens lives are not important enough to them. Thank god for people like Monsieur Syvret._________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

Here is the belated follow-up to my previous post on the administration of justice in Jersey.
It’s as well that it’s late – because I was able to read the Jersey Evening Post of today, the 7th August 2008.
Which – sorry – makes this post another long one. I know some people don’t like my lengthy ramblings – but we have to resist sound-bite culture. There is masses of short stuff out there if you prefer – even the insubstantial glossings of The Rag – if all you have time for is a couple of paragraphs.
But as a remarked in a comment – notwithstanding the fact that Jersey has a very sizable panoply of journalists – none of them – and none of the media they work for – will deliver the in-depth analysis and polemics you find on this site.
Indeed – what I’m concluding here should have been researched and published by Jersey journos a long time ago.
Remember – I’m a one-man-band churning out this stuff – It’s not like I even get paid for it – but it’s still more detailed, more accurate and more informative than that which is churned out by all of Jersey’s hacks – combined.
And – at the end of this post I’ll explain the inexplicable.
By one of those notable coincidences, The Rag features an article of great relevance to the subject I’m addressing.
Well, not the article, actually – that’s the predictable regurgitation of establishment spin and statements of the bleeding obvious.
But accompanying the article, on page 16, is a photograph.
I strongly urge readers to try and get a look at the photo if you haven’t seen it already.
Maybe there is a God?
I couldn’t have prayed for a more timely, relevant – and telling photo.
This is what the photograph depicts.
It is a ceremonial procession which is beginning outside of the Jersey parliament building.
Who knows – it could have been taken on Liberation Day this year – as we were due to process from the Royal Square where the parliament building is – down to Liberation Square – to mark our liberation from the forces of fascism.
Let us remember – it was on the occasion of this year’s Liberation Day, that the Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, delivered his frankly deranged attack on the investigations into the Jersey’s child abuse disaster.
But that is by-the-by.
What does the photo depict?
At the head of the procession is a court functionary carrying the ornate Royal Mace which was gifted to the Jersey robber-barons & privateers for their loyalty to the Crown during the English Civil War.
The Mace symbolises the authority of the Crown – under which Jersey’s oligarchy operates.
So in the photograph we have what is – for our times – a particularly relevant depiction of the British Crown’s authority over Jersey.
A few paces behind the Mace walks Jersey’s Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache – head of the judiciary - and, bizarrely, head of the legislature – and the man who thinks “the real scandal” of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster is not the abuse – but the “denigration of Jersey and her people.”
Walking along side Phil is the “Lieutenant Governor” – the functionary who represents the Crown in Jersey (in effect, the UK Government).
Phil is cloaked in some kind of pseudo-historical fancy-dress – funny hat – fur-trimmed red cloak, the whole bit.
The Lieutenant Governor is clothed in a yet more extreme example of that meaningless fancy-dress – so beloved by the British establishment to remind them of glory days gone by.
Mirror-shined boots, some kind of war coat, which may have been of relevance 200 years ago, a belt, so camply ostentatious it could have been designed by Jean-Paul Gaultier – as could the hat he wears – which appears to be attoped by a dead seagull.
This man is Lieutenant General Andrew Ridgway. A man who – instead of properly defending the good name of the Crown – has been implacable in his siding with the Jersey shysters.
He has repeatedly informed London that every thing in the garden is rosy – so far as public administration is concerned – notwithstanding the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
He has also – as has been reliably reported to me by several, separate sources – been doing his level-best to smear me by telling anyone who will listen that my campaign on behalf of abuse victims is just some kind of “political opportunism” and that I was merely “using the survivors for my political purposes” – his grasp of chronology clearly being so poor that he just doesn’t recollect that it was me who started campaigning for the truth to come out concerning child abuse – and that the resultant “political” row was generated and used opportunistically by his Jersey oligarchy friends to suppress the truth - and oppress me.
Strangely enough – as I sit here writing this post, the Lieutenant Governor is hosting – at Government House – a dinner party which features some UK politicians – and as guest of honour – Lenny Harper – to mark his retirement.
As though Lenny and his team had had unwavering support from these clowns.
Take it from me – the Police are under no illusions as to the cosmetic nature of such functions. Knowing Lenny, I expect he’s making all the right noises – but keeping his council – for the time being.
Keeping his powder dry.
So what, then, does the photo depict after Phil & Andy?
You couldn’t make it up.
For there – walking behind Phil & Andy – we see none other than the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt – and Francis Hamon, former Deputy Bailiff, and still an active judge in Jersey’s court.
The Rag has always been in the habit of using such photographs – the fancy-dress, the manufactured tradition and pomp – the invented ceremonial functions – all developed over the centuries – or in this case, the last decade - to make a vast number of Brits go weak at the knees and doff their caps.
Such awe-inspiring “grandeur” is calculated to keep the rabble in line; an objective very much supported by The Rag.
But – in yet another example of crass misjudgement – they’ve used this photograph – clearly not realising that – under the current circumstances – what it depicts is altogether unsavoury – and damning of the administration of justice in Jersey.
For what is depicted are the unhealthy mish-mash and over-laps of traditional power, symbolism, the most senior Jersey oligarchy figures – all of whom should have been held to account a long time ago – and the supportive presence of the Crown/UK government in the form of Andy Ridgway – through who’s Offices the Jersey oligarchy has – yet again – been shielded and protected from accountability – no matter that the oligarchy’s actions have been inimical to the good of 85% of Her Majesty’s subjects here in Jersey.
I guess too many society dinner parties must rot the brain.
So in what way is the presence in the photograph of Michael Birt and Frances Hamon of relevance to our discussion?
In the 1990’s, Francis Hamon was – in addition to being a judge in Jersey’s Royal Court – a member of the Board of Governors of Jersey’s leading private school, Victoria College.
During this period, repeated complaints of child abuse were made to the school’s leadership.
At one point the then headmaster asked Francis Hamon – whilst they were playing a game of squash – what he should do about the complaints of abuse. Hamon failed to advise him to go to the Police.
And out of that whole, wretched abuse episode – it was plain that several people had a powerful case against them to answer for conspiring to pervert the course of justice, misconduct in public office, and breaching the Children (Jersey) Law 1969 by failing to properly protect children for which they had responsibility.
Amongst these people were the headmaster, Jack Hydes; Frances Hamon; deputy head, John Le Breton and one Piers Baker – the man who thinks child abuse is “teachers perks”.
All four of these people should have faced trial – none of them did.
Who was the Jersey Attorney General at that time?
The person responsible for the non-prosecutions?
The person who should have – but failed to – seek the prosecutions of these individuals?
Yep – Michael Birt; now Deputy Bailiff; deputy head of the Jersey judiciary and deputy chair of the legislature.
And there he strides – in the photograph - alongside Mad Frankie Hamon – and behind Phil and Andy – all of whom walk behind the Mace which represents the Crown – which – in theory – should be protecting its subjects in Jersey by ensuring to them the safety of the rule of law and freedom from tyranny.
Phil Bailhache – failed to deal correctly with child protection issues in the past – and who has made the most gross and crass overtly political interventions against the child abuse investigation.
Andy Ridgway – who has singularly failed to properly represent the Crown – who has defended these failed Jersey grandees to the authorities in London – and who has - pro-actively - been engaging in smear campaigns against me - the only Jersey politician to have openly represented the interest of the survivors.
Mike Birt – who not only failed to prosecute all those who should have been, in connection with the child protection failures at Victoria College, but who also - in 1998 – stood up in Jersey’s Royal Court and asserted that the case against the McGuires had to be dropped because of “insufficient evidence”. I, incidentally, read that evidence last year, after it had been drawn to my attention by whistle-blowers.
Just take my word for it; the evidence was NOT “insufficient” for a prosecution to go ahead.
And it is even less “insufficient” now.
Now that Jersey’s present Attorney General has had the completed papers from the Police on the McGuires – for three months now – and still he fails to act.
The present Attorney General being one William Bailhache – brother of Bailiff, Phil.
The same William Bailhache who obstructed my old Health & Social Services Committee when it was attempting to investigate child protection failures in the wake or the Bichard report.
The very same Attorney General who has, to date, obstructed the charging of at least three other suspects in addition to the McGuires.
One of whom – Danny Wherry – is a member of the same gold club as Bailhache.
You think it couldn’t get any worse?
Alas, not included in the photograph – though most probably present - will have been the 12 “Jurats” – a form of lay-judges who sit in judgment on cases before the court.
These 12 ‘judges’ are elected by an electoral college of lawyers and politicians – now doesn’t that just sound like a recipe for a healthy and straight judicial system?
But that isn’t really the point.
This is.
Amongst the 12 Jurats is one John Le Breton – the former deputy head of Victoria College.
Le Breton one was of the key participants in the cover-up of the child abuse; one of the people who should have been prosecuted – back in the late 1990’s – by Michael Birt.
Instead – he sits on the court benches – handing down “judgments” on lesser mortals – including – get this – former St. Helier Constable, Bob Le Brocq.
Le Brocq was the public figure who caught the flack for the presence of the paedophile Roger Holland in the parish’s honorary police force. He was arraigned before the court for this – and admonished – and consequently lost the election he was to shortly face.
I cannot say whether Le Brocq’s actions were all that they could or should have been; but what I can say – is that he was a good deal less culpable than the Bailiff, Philip Bailhache, who, when Attorney General, failed to make an attempt to get Holland thrown out of the police.
And very – very - substantially less culpable for child protection failures than one of the Jurats who sat in judgment on him – John Le Breton.
Le Breton colluded with the then headmaster of the school in attempts to cover-up the complaints of abuse – and even went so far as to, with Jack Hydes, attempt to humiliate and intimidate two of the victims into withdrawing their complaints.
Even by Jersey standards – his conduct was so appalling he had to resign in disgrace from the school. But - in typical Jersey oligarchy fashion – he was rapidly re-habilitated when the ‘electoral college’ appointed him to be a Jurat.
So there we have – illustrated by photographic evidence – published by The Rag, no less – the simply inescapable conflicts of interest, over-laps, direct involvements, professional and personal relationships, mutual intermeshings - and involvement of the Crown – all of which go further to the proof that the administration of justice apparatus in Jersey is – plainly – incompetent to deal with any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
So having described in detail the direct conflicts of interest which bedevil the prosecutory and judicial apparatus in Jersey – let’s recap the fundamental – rock-solid – legal principles of objectivity.
In yesterday’s post, I explained, at some length (sorry), the background information pertaining to the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, the Jersey oligarchy’s profoundly antagonistic and deeply conflicted position – and why, resultantly, the prosecutory and judicial processes of Jersey are manifestly incapable of achieving the necessary appearance of objectivity.
Yesterday I dealt with some fundamental, legal principles, and then went onto explain how the head of Jersey’s judiciary – it’s chief Judge, Sir Philip Bailhache – was deeply conflicted; I explained that no judiciary headed by this man could even remotely be regarded as appearing to be objective and impartial in any matter arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
And – as I said I would – I have described above why, not only Phil, but all the rest of Jersey’s prosecutory and judicial apparatus as well, was also hopelessly conflicted.
But as I also said, there is also another - absolutely fundamental issue – which I will conclude with.
Before then, let’s recap the situation, the arguments, the facts.
As can be seen by reading my last posting, the established facts are these:
1: Jersey is having to come to terms with a child abuse disaster of world-scale. No matter what the particular facts and details of each case may be – we cannot now be but certain that something quite monstrous has gone profoundly wrong with the Jersey authorities’ attitude to vulnerable children.
2: The final exposure of a vast catalogue of abuse will, obviously, lead to both criminal and civil legal cases.
3: There is, therefore, no escaping the fact that a prosecution system and judiciary will need to be deployed to deal with all such cases.
4: Certain rock-solid, fundamental and inescapable principles of jurisprudence are established as such immovable foundations of justice as to be beyond all credible argument. For our purposes, the relevant principles are:
(a) Justice must be seen to be done. All judicial process have to avoid even the merest hint or suspicion that they may not be impartial and neutral. The administration of justice – in order to be credible – has to meet a test of the appearance of objectivity. There cannot even be the merest suspicion of conflict.

(b) No man can be a judge in his own cause. No person can sit in judgement on a case in which they feature in any way; nor can a person appoint those who will judge him; to do so would be to breach the crucial appearance of objectivity.
I did invite any lawyers who dispute my analysis to debate the issues on this blog, but none has. I guess there are some arguments so fallacious and absurd that not even lawyers could make them.
So we can safely conclude that our analysis is correct.
1: The administration of Justice Apparatus in Jersey needs to become involved in the child abuse disaster.
2: The administration of justice has to appear to be impartial; it has to avoid even the merest suspicion of being conflicted.
3: Jersey’s senior judge and head of the judiciary, Sir. Philip Bailhache is hopelessly conflicted, as detailed in Tuesday’s posting. He has made several, strident, political interventions in connection with the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster, and has a personal history of not responding adequately or professionally to child protection issues.
4: As things stand, no judge can be appointed to hear cases in Jersey’s court unless the judge is appointed and/or approved by the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache; or in his absence, the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt.
5: The involvement of either man in appointing judges would breach the appearance of objectivity test on the grounds that ‘no man can be a judge in his own cause’.
6: The conflicts of interest entirely engulf the rest of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus. Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Attorney General, Jurats – all are hopelessly conflicted.
So that much is established fact; no Jersey lawyers at all have rushed to dismiss our argument so far.
Through its own choice and insistence over the decades and centuries, the Jersey judiciary maintains an involvement in politics. There is a profoundly unhealthy over-lap between the legislature and the judiciary.
The Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, in addition to being head and deputy head of the judiciary are also speaker and deputy speaker of the Jersey parliament.
No propositions, amendments, questions, formal statements or reports can be tabled to the legislature without first being approved by either the Bailiff of Deputy Bailiff.
Both men routinely exhibit dramatic political bias in exercising these bizarre powers.
I personally – as have a number of other non-establishment members – have had propositions, amendments, questions and reports interfered with and obstructed on a regular basis.
The deep politicisation of both men is very much evident in such examples of pro-oligarchy bias and the obstructions placed in the way of anti-establishment States members.
The Bailiff, or in his absence, the Deputy Bailiff, acts as the civic head of the island; the God knows on what authority.
In this capacity, the Bailiff has routinely made political speeches and given addresses in which he purports to speak for the community of Jersey. When doing so he has adopted the cloak of de facto prime ministers – making political pronouncements as would the prime minister in the UK.
In making such speeches, the Bailiff has repeatedly attempted to defend the status quo of Jersey’s position; to defend the oligarchy and to – as he would no doubt presume it – to speak on behalf of the community.
In acting in this way he has routinely – as is a matter of public record – made it crystal-clear that he is joining in with, and supporting the actual political establishment of the island in all their various efforts to show a veneer of respectability to the outside world.
So here’s the rub.
As a judge - let alone as actual head of the judiciary – the fortunes and appearances of the island’s governmental authorities ought to be a matter of total disinterest to him.
No respectable judge can do their work if they carry in their minds the constant consideration: -
“How will the implications of this judicial matter look politically; how might it affect the executive. I don’t want to see any damage or harm come to the cause, standing or reputation of the government.”
Yet that is precisely what we have from Phil Bailhache.
And this state of affairs is doubly problematic for him and the judiciary which he leads.
Firstly, in the case of Phil Bailhache – we do not even need to speculate on his political views, allegiances or priorities.
He, himself has overtly, prominently and publicly displayed just such political partisanship.
So in his case – it isn’t even merely a case of “suspicion” of conflict. It’s out on the table – for the world to see.
Secondly, even if he hadn’t bee so incautiously overt in his political activities – the mere fact that he regards himself as the ‘civic’ leader of Jersey – and thus has an unambiguous stake in the appearance and reputation of the island and its establishment – means that he cannot escape the suspicion that he may be biased.
Which returns us to the established point that no respectable judicial process can, for one instant, be associated with even the merest whiff of suspicion.
The test is that judicial processes must achieve the appearance of objectivity.
Neither of the present incumbents as Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff - nor indeed, those roles as presently defined, can get remotely close to meeting that test.
To elaborate on the principles at play here; in respectable, functioning democracies – it has been accepted – for a very long time – that their needed to be a clear separation between legislature – the realm of politics – and the judiciary – the realm of law.
Such a ‘separation of powers’ has long been regarded as necessary in order to achieve what are termed effective ‘checks and balances’. This needs to so in order to ensure that neither realm – the political or the legal – can indulge in untrammelled power; that each be subject to checks and restraints by the other.
The political sphere makes the laws to which the courts must work within, and adjudicate upon. The courts then administer justice impartially – free of political considerations.
For this arrangement – which underpins power in all established, respectable democracies – to work – the courts must be free of any political taint.
Not least, because – and this is a very relevant point to the Jersey situation – it is often governments which break the law. Public authorities; different sections of public administration are subject to the rule of law – every bit as much as you or I.
Therefore, the courts; the judiciary, will often be called upon to hear cases and adjudicate upon both criminal and civil actions against the government or one of its departments.
But this arrangement cannot possibly work if judges carry with them the concern - “how will this look for the government?” If they did – the effectiveness of the rule of law collapses – instantly.
Judges, and the courts over which they preside, must – I repeat, must – set aside, and not allow, contamination by political, personal or philosophical considerations.
The whole modus operandi of judicial proceedings is that they apply objectively the laws of the day, admit only evidenced facts to enter the equation – and that they then come to impartial and objective decisions based upon the relevant laws and the merits or otherwise of that particular case.
Judges and their courts will often be called upon to adjudicate over some action or omission of the government. And the factual, evidenced, lawful conclusions of such cases may well be profoundly embarrassing and extremely detrimental to the government.
And that is just - “tough”.
The law - is the law- is the law.
And if a government has broken a law – it must be held to account by the courts – quite regardless of whether the judgment is “politically” damaging for the government.
Having laid out those facts – we are forced to accept that there is only one credible conclusion we can arrive at in our consideration of the competence of the judicial apparatus of Jersey to deal with the child abuse disaster.
And that conclusion is that it cannot be remotely regarded as competent as presently structured.
Both structurally – and in terms of the political actions of certain of its senior members – its contaminating entwinement with the political sphere in Jersey forms an insurmountable obstacle to the good administration of justice.
In fact – this conclusion is so inescapable that we have to question the calibre and competence of senior figures in the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus when they continue to refuse to face that fact.
Even if all of the individuals I cite above were – by some superhuman and Christ-like ability – to set aside their personal views, their prior involvements and their political considerations; even if I was to concede that such a fantastical notion could be exercised by these individuals – it would still make no difference.
It would make no difference – whatsoever – to the fact that they would continue to APPEAR to be conflicted.
And it is that mere suspicion - that mere hint of conflict – which renders them and the entire Jersey judicial apparatus incompetent to deal with any issues – criminal or civil – arising from the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.
I said earlier that there was a fundamental issue with which I would conclude; by which I would attempt to explain the inexplicable.
So, here goes.
Given that it is - very – very – obvious that the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus is hopelessly conflicted in any matter relating to the child abuse disaster; given that there are absolutely mountains of rock-solid jurisprudence – unassailable authorities – which make our case – which seal our conclusions - we have to ask a question?
Why should the Jersey judicial apparatus be placing itself in diametric opposition to all established authority and case-law?
The reason is this.
They all know that if they conceded the fact – for it is a fact – that Jersey’s prosecutory system and judicial apparatus is disastrously conflicted – and therefore incompetent to deal with these cases – then we head - very rapidly – to an unavoidable conclusion.
The legal principles, the jurisprudence, the case-law and human rights – all draw Jersey implacably to an inevitable conclusion.
Which is that - because of its tiny size, because of inevitable conflicts of interest – because of that fundamental principle that justice must be seen to be done – because no suspicion of bias can be permitted in judicial processes – Jersey is not capable of the proper administration of justice under the present constitutional arrangements.
Not just in respect of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster – but in practically every single criminal or civil case of any significance.
If the Jersey oligarchy were to concede the fact of their conflictedness – to admit that they cannot meet the test of the appearance of objectivity in the present crises – then – inevitably – they also concede that such a small place as Jersey cannot properly administer justice at all – without dramatically greater external involvement and oversight.
This is why the Jersey oligarchy – finally – finds itself making a last stand. And doing so – in futility - against the entire canon of established jurisprudence and authority.
They know – we know – they know we know – we know they know we know – that a final, implacable end has been reached.
That whilst Jersey can – and should – remain self-governing insofar as the political sphere is concerned – in the case of the competent administration of justice – we must now embrace external and independent judicial processes.
Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done.
Not even the merest suspicion of partiality or conflict can be associated with any respectable, functioning judicial processes.
Jersey is, therefore, simply incapable of meeting that basic standard.
And to those who condemn me for committing such heresy – recognise that the fundamental legal principles I describe are not some fanatical product of mine; they are the sound and wise product of centuries of justice.
If Jersey is to stand as a respectable, self-governing jurisdiction into the future – we simply have no choice other than to accept that what passes for the administration of justice at present in the island – just does not meet the requisite standard.
Indeed – probably hasn’t done for at least 100 years.
I do not advocate full independence for the island. Personally, I want to retain my British citizenship.
Nor do advocate becoming a part of the United Kingdom – I value Jersey’s historical independence.
But this is now the 21st century.
The good administration of justice cannot be delivered internally – in a community of 90,000. Structurally – it simply isn’t possible. The conflicts are simply inescapable.
I, along with John Hemming MP, am shortly to embark upon a legal action in London against Jack Straw MP – the relevant UK Government Minister.
Our case is simple:
Britain – historically, constitutionally and under modern Convention obligations – has ultimate responsibility for the good administration of justice in Jersey.
Britain does have the power to intervene – something unarguably established by robust precedent.
Britain should intervene - under the present circumstances – which involve a clear breakdown in the ability of the Jersey prosecutory and judicial apparatus to meet the test of the appearance of objectivity.
Britain’s ability to exercise such power is through Jack Straw and the Privy Council.
Britain’s failure to intervene - on behalf of a very substantial number of abuse victims, and the good administration of justice generally – should be subjected to Judicial Review.
That – in essence – is the case we will be making.
Personally – I’m confident we will win; that we will secure a Judicial Review of the situation.
But – I really wish none of the above was necessary.
I just wish our oligarchs possessed the wisdom to – finally - face the inevitable._________________www.rethink911.orgwww.actorsandartistsfor911truth.orgwww.mediafor911truth.orgwww.pilotsfor911truth.orgwww.mp911truth.orgwww.ae911truth.orgwww.rl911truth.orgwww.stj911.orgwww.l911t.comwww.v911t.orgwww.thisweek.org.ukwww.abolishwar.org.ukwww.elementary.org.ukwww.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Notorious Jersey paedophile Edward Paisnel used to visit Haut de la Garenne dressed as Father Christmas to give the children toys and sweets, it emerged today.

Paisnel, dubbed the Beast of Jersey, was jailed for 30 years in 1971 after being convicted of 13 counts of assault, rape and sodomy.

He lived in St Martin, close to Haut de la Garenne and after the trial his wife Joan wrote a book claiming Paisnel used to visit the care home to take gifts to the children, who he asked to call him "Uncle Ted".

Court reports from the time revealed that Paisnel avoided capture despite committing his crimes over ten years because he was a respected businessman, husband, and guardian of several foster children.

Mrs Paisnel said every year "Uncle Ted" faithfully appeared at Haut de la Garenne dressed as Father Christmas, to hand out sweets and toys.

During his trial it was revealed he would prowl for his victims wearing a jacket studded with nails at the shoulders and on the lapels and a rubber mask.

Behind a cupboard in his home, police found the entrance to a windowless room containing books on black magic and witchcraft and an altar draped with black velvet.

The Beast Of Jersey - by his wife Joan Paisnel (NEL, Sept. 1973: originally Robert Hale, 1972)
Three chapters in, and ... how the Jersey Tourist board must've loved this one. The island is depicted as a hot-bed of black and white magic, wife-swapping, interbreeding, organised crime and God knows what else, and one man who certainly had a dabble in most of these dubious past-times was Ted Paisnel. A kindly natured fellow to his family (although he and his second wife lived in different parts of his huge premises), Paisnel spent eleven years terrorising the island to the point where women and children feared to wander alone. Dressed in a grotesque outfit - mask, wig, nailed wristbands and a weirdly decorated coat, this brutal man was eventually convicted of thirteen offences against children in 1971.

The story begins with his chance capture after an exciting nocturnal car chase and the search of his rooms which revealed a concealed altar. We've also had a snoop at his paperback collection which includes occult works by Eric Maple, Wheatley's "The Devil Rides Out" and "To The Devil - A Daughter" and H. T. F. Rhodes' heart-warming "The Satanic Mass". Ted also claims to have had a horror story published in Argosy, though his wife reckons he made that up. We've also had a couple of references to Steve McQueen in Bullit and James Bond. Mrs. Paisnel sounds quite cheerful so far, all things considered, but I guess that will change over the next hundred pages.

By Louise Hubball
News correspondent, BBC South West
Thursday, 21 August 2008

The detective who led the historic child abuse inquiry in Jersey has strongly attacked the way the island's legal system is handling the scandal.

In an exclusive interview with the BBC, Lenny Harper, who retired from the States of Jersey Police earlier this month, blamed "inexplicable delays and decisions" by the States of Jersey lawyers for some cases failing to reach court.

Mr Harper has now left the island, but before his retirement he led the major police investigation into child abuse within Jersey's care system from the early 1960s to 1986.

So far, three people have been charged in connection with the inquiry, focused on the Haut de la Garenne former children's home, and there are more than 80 other people being investigated by police.

Police have found 65 milk teeth and more than 100 bone fragments at the site.

Mr Harper said his officers had to wait "months and months" for decisions, and the decision making process for prosecutors in Jersey seemed to be, "whenever, wherever".

Describing repeated delays in the legal process, he said there were a number of occasion where officers felt "the goalposts were being moved".

"If it hadn't have been for what I would see as inexplicable delays and decisions, then yes more people would be before the courts at the moment I believe," he said.

Mr Harper also claimed the legal hierarchy in Jersey was "absolutely held in contempt by the vast majority of victims".

He paid tribute to the performance of the police team, but said the delays in dealing with prosecutions has resulted in victims not being given the service they deserved.

William Bailhache, Jersey's Attorney General, said that while he could not comment on individual cases, of the six files which had been sent to his office three had resulted in charges, two were under review and one was still the subject of police inquiries.

Mr Harper's criticisms follow a bid for a judicial review which was launched at the High Court last week.

A campaign group, set up by the UKs Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming and Senator Stuart Syvret from Jersey, says it does not have confidence in the way the island's authorities have handled the investigation.

It wants a judicial review of what it has called the "failure" of UK ministers to "enforce the rule of law".

The Londonderry man also hit out at the channel island’s Attorney General and his office saying they are held in “total contempt” by victims of child abuse after repeatedly failing to bring offenders to justice.

“I am very frustrated the investigation is not as advanced as I had hoped but I am extremely frustrated at the way the victims are being treated by the Attorney General,” he told the Belfast Telegraph.

“He (the Attorney General) tried to reprimand me for speaking out when two suspects were released without charge.

“The victims were ringing up and giving the victims’ liaison people a very hard time.

“I put a press release out to show it was not our position and try to recover some of the creditability I felt we had lost with the victims.

“The Attorney General took exception to that and tried to reprimand me. I was so angry,” he said.

Mr Harper added: “The Attorney General and his office are scaring off witnesses. The Attorney General can be in no doubt that the victims in this case hold him in contempt. I am not saying I do, but the victims do.”

The former Jersey Deputy Police Chief, who hit the international headlines in February when he launched one of Britain's biggest child abuse inquiries in recent years, said he has mixed feelings about leaving Jersey while the investigation is still ongoing.

More than 100 former residents at the former care home Haut de la Garenne — which has been dubbed the ‘house of horrors’ — have alleged that they were physically and sexually abused.

Forensic teams uncovered secret underground chambers which some victims referred to as "punishment rooms" where they were kept in solitary confinement, drugged, beaten and raped.

They found the partial remains of five children as well as a bloodstained bath and shackles.

“The job is not completely over. It could finish in six months or it could take another two years but the investigation being carried out by Jersey and UK police officers is first class and they will continue fighting for justice for the victims. I am glad to be retired, it has been difficult at times in Jersey, but I am also very sad at leaving behind the people I was working with,” said the 56 year-old.

As well as the pressure of dealing with the harrowing child abuse investigation Mr Harper, who has now moved to Ayrshire in Scotland with his wife, also had to deal with “corrupt former cops” who he claimed tried to discredit him and the investigation.

It’s difficult to know what to make of this madness anymore.http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/2008/08/secret-report-from-lenny-harp er.html
But don’t take my word for that.
Just read below the report written by tough, straight cop Lenny Harper in response to the perversions of justice being engaged in by William Bailhache and his agents.
Which cliché to use? You couldn’t make it up? Read it and weep?
Read Lenny Harper’s confidential memo in full.
Christ – I’m just not paid anything like enough for doing this job.
Stuart.

leaked report by DCO Lenny Harper wrote:

REPORT TO JERSEY’S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOLLOWING THE POLICE PUBLICLY OBJECTING TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE CHARGING OF SUSPECTS AGAINST WHOM SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENT.

The Attorney General has requested a report into the circumstances and reasons for the issue of the Media Statement following the release from Custody of Mr and Mrs Bonner who were arrested by the Historical Abuse Team for three Grave and Criminal Assaults. The reasons for the release however, do not start with the arrest of the Bonners and are outlined in full below.

On 9th April 2008 I met with the AG in the presence of yourself. This meeting was to discuss the provision of Legal Assistance to the Historical Abuse Enquiry. The Attorney General was keen to appoint an independent lawyer to assist the enquiry “in order to prevent you from barking up the wrong tree at an early stage.” There was some discussion over his wish to have the lawyer placed within the Incident Room. I, ACPO, and others saw this as a highly unusual step, and objected to that situation.

Eventually a compromise was reached and Mr Simon Thomas was appointed and given an office in Police Headquarters. Agreement was reached with him, Cyril Whelan, and Stephen Baker that, in a departure from normal practice, we would not arrest suspects whom we hoped to charge until we had submitted a file of evidence to the lawyers and they would then guide us on what charges could be preferred. This was to prevent us from having to arrest a string of suspects and release them whilst the report was being considered. We were reassured that the turnaround in the files would be very quick in order not to delay the process of arrest and charge.

The service that we have received from the legal team has not been as we were led to believe it would be. Since his arrival in mid April we have given Mr Thomas six files. The file for the Bonner case, which was a straight-forward file containing only a small number of statements was handed to him in early June. There followed a number of meetings between himself, the Deputy SIO, the Detective Sergeant Team Leader, and the two investigators in charge of that particular enquiry. During these meetings the evidence was discussed and on Friday 20th June 2008 the Detective Sergeant and the two investigators met with Mr Thomas. It was agreed that the Bonners should be arrested and charged with three crimes of Grave and Criminal Assault. As always, it was accepted that this was subject to any significant changes in the evidence against them following interview or the arrest process. All three officers are certain of the instructions given to them by Mr Thomas and recall clearly the discussions about the difference between the different types of assault and the directions given in relation to charging.

The Bonners were arrested on Tuesday 24th June 2007. Mr Bonner was interviewed first. He denied the offences but offered nothing which changed the evidence against him or his wife. Mrs Bonner feigned illness but was declared fit by the Doctor.

At 5pm Simon Thomas declared to the investigators that he had revised his view and said he did not want the couple charged. The officers were extremely surprised and not a little frustrated. I spoke to Simon who, it transpired, was between trains and on a railway station platform somewhere in the North of England. Indeed, as we spoke the conversation was frequently interrupted by passing trains. He said he had revised his opinion because of new evidence that had emerged during the day. I asked what that evidence was and he gave me three “developments.”

1. Mrs Bonner was unwell. I explained the situation in respect of her and that the Police Doctor thought she was feigning. I explained that she was obtaining the woman’s medical notes and would further advise at 6.30pm. In the event, the Doctor declared the suspect fit for detention and interview. I questioned however, whether this could be said to be new evidence which affected the decision to charge.
2. Simon then told me that a witness called Drake had rung the Custody Officer and said we had made a mistake, and that we had the wrong people in custody. I pointed out that Drake had made a witness statement which Simon had seen and which he had taken into account when recommending which charges should be preferred. Drake had not added any new evidence to what was in his statement.

3. The Bonners' children had telephoned and said their parents were good people and that they (the children) were now flying to Jersey. I asked Simon how that was new evidence as opposed to character evidence, and he said that they might have evidence relevant to the allegations as they lived in the same house. I pointed out that he knew that previously and also that they lived in a different part of the house.

Simon then said he needed to speak to Cyril Whelan and Stephen Baker who were in Jersey. He did so and telephoned back. He said they agreed with him and wanted to see the interviews before charging. I pointed out that this made the arrangement we had pretty worthless - what was the point of us sending him the file before arrest if he still had to wait to see the interview notes? The idea was that he told us the charges before we released suspects. He then said that he could not do that as things might change during the interview. He said we arrested on suspicion and then interviewed and he decided on charges afterwards. I made the point that we had all agreed that we would not arrest until we had given him the papers and this was to allow us to be given suitable charges to prevent the process of arrest and release. He said that things could always arise during interview. I accepted that occasionally that could happen but that in the absence of anything dramatic, the agreed charges would normally still be relevant. I pointed out that he had met the officers in this case and the Deputy SIO on several occasions and that just before arrest there had been discussion on the charges and he had agreed three G&C assault charges. He said that was not correct. All four of our staff, DI Fossey, DS Smith, and the two UK detectives were frustrated at this development as their recollection was he had clearly agreed with them this course of action. I told Simon that if these two were not charged I was not having the Enquiry Team officers blamed for it. He finished by saying that operationally he could not tell me whether to charge or not.

In view of that comment, I told the officers to get the Centenier in to PHQ to charge. They did so. Danny Scaife came in, Andy Smith gave him the full facts including the discussion with the lawyer, and Danny went off to read the evidence. He did so for well over an hour and then declared that although there was enough evidence to charge, he was not going to.

At that stage I told Louise Nibbs to put the Press Release out. It avoided comment and stuck to the facts. In answer to the Attorney General’s question, the following are the reasons I put it out.

Simon Thomas commented this week that he was anxious there should be no perception that the decisions to charge or not to charge suspects were being made under improper influence of factors other than evidence. I made the point to him, and make it again, that he and others do not seem able to grasp the fact that this perception is already there among the victims. They feel that the decisions are, and have been made in the past, on many factors other than the evidence. It is the need to avoid this perception that was uppermost in my mind in releasing the factual Media statement that evening.

One of the most heartening features of this enquiry has been the trust placed in the officers by very vulnerable victims and witnesses. This is despite them being on many occasions very badly let down by a number of agencies when they have previously tried to report crimes against them. This trust has been based on a foundation of openness and transparency together with an obvious determination to get to the truth. It is in marked contrast to the total contempt that the victims hold the Attorney General and his office in. So suspicious of that office are they, that many victims remain sceptical about the possibility of ever bringing the people who abused them to justice. The need to overcome the doubts victims had about the States of Jersey Police was one of the reasons why we agreed the policy of not arresting anyone until we had submitted the file to the lawyer working with us. In this way we avoided the scenario, seen so often in the UK, of a succession of suspects being brought into custody and then released without charge.
Such a scenario in this case would have damaged the credibility of the investigation and risked us being placed in the same category as those agencies the victims do not trust. This is illustrated by a briefing I have had from the NSPCC Counsellor working alongside us. He has received a text message from a victim (which he has showed me) to say "It is a joke. Another two walk away. No wonder no one will come forward." Here is an illustration of the need for us to maintain our distance and our independence from the office of the Attorney General, and a stark reason for the release.

However, the agreement mentioned above has not worked as planned or indeed promised. Files have been submitted, some of them not very complex and indeed, no more complicated than the normal type file dealt with on a daily basis by the PPU. The time to turn them around by the legal team has been frustratingly long. There is no intention to criticise the ability of the “dedicated” lawyer here, but it is obvious that he has a number of commitments in the UK which makes it difficult for him to be here. The debacle over the Bonner case is one example. As stated above, the officers concerned are adamant that they were given the go ahead to charge; subject to the usual conditions that nothing significant occurred during the arrest process or interviews. If this had not been the case, no arrest would have been made. The actions of the UK lawyer himself hardly seem to corroborate the picture of someone giving serious consideration to an evolving investigation with prisoners in custody. Some UK and even Jersey law practitioners may find it rather bizarre that a lawyer found it acceptable to carry out such work on the platform of a busy railway station.

A further example of the poor service given to us is illustrated by the Maguire case. The importance of this case to our enquiry is obvious to all, including the media. The Deputy SIO and I have continually emphasised this to Simon Thomas.

We delivered the file to Simon on the 29th April. The investigators, the Deputy SIO, and I regularly asked him for progress reports. These were not really forthcoming even when he was in Jersey. I had to speak to a Jersey lawyer with experience of extradition to clarify one point. I then spoke to a CPS expert on Extradition to clarify something else in an attempt to speed things up. In mid June I was told by Simon that he and Cyril Whelan had almost finished the work on the charges. Then we were told that the AG had asked for full advice files on the facts and the law. We realised the need for this but were firm in seeking assurances from the lawyers that this would be done quickly. Stephen Baker, after some debate, undertook that the AG would be fully advised within seven days. That period expired last week and the investigating officers e mailed Simon Thomas in the UK and asked if it had been done. The reply from Simon Thomas was “I will answer this question next week.”

This answer to a reasonable and sensible question beggars belief, and is another example of the shoddy and unprofessional service which we are receiving. To return to the question of perception, what sort of perception would this give to the public if they knew of it? Meanwhile, the Maguires remain in France, although we are told by the lawyers that our fear of them absconding is not supported by their information. This is despite that our intelligence comes from those who found them in the first place.

In summary, I issued the Press Release to explain to the public, but mainly the victims, why these two suspects had been released. I feel, as do the investigators, that we were badly let down by the legal advice delivered from afar. The three pieces of “new evidence”, even to a police officer, were transparently no such thing. As the conversation unfurled it became obvious that even Simon Thomas did not truly believe that what he was describing to me was evidence. I could not work out, and am still unable to work out, what really did prompt the change of heart and the revision of the advice. I have refused to speculate on that but was determined that the States of Jersey Police would not be criticised for the decision. Subsequent events proved that this was a justifiable fear with the Deputy Home Affairs Minister describing to me how a number of members of the Council of Ministers were already gleefully talking about another “Police c*** Up” in bringing these suspects in and not charging them.

It is also probably pertinent to include some reference in this report to the expressed view of the Attorney General, and indeed the Minister, that the circulation list for this and other police press releases is “too wide and encourages wider comment.” These comments show a distinct lack of awareness of dealing with the media in this type of situation. The list has evolved from the early days of the enquiry because when the first media releases were made, the Press Officer was immediately deluged with media outlets demanding to know why they had not received the release and asking why we were hiding it from them. Apart from an impression of reluctance to communicate, this heavy demand led to our phone systems being blocked, (at one point the Press Officer had 128 messages waiting), and caused unnecessary stress to our staff. It was also expensive in time and cost to send out a Press Release so many times, not to mention extremely unprofessional. Several weeks ago the Press Officer contacted everyone on the list and asked if she could take them off. Only three agreed and they are now removed.

Another aspect and implication of the Attorney General’s comment which he might like to reflect on is what would happen if we did indeed cut our circulation list. When the inevitable questions arrived from the media all over the world and we told them that we had removed them from out list, they would without doubt ask why. When we gave the truthful answer that the AG thought it a good idea to curtail circulation and a wider coverage they just might, in the light of the many allegations of cover up against his office, think that they had here positive evidence of the “wilful obstruction” which he was recently accused of. No matter how unjust that might be, it would be an obvious outcome.

.............Observe this section in particular, in which Lenny is speaking of the general and widespread corruption which dominates in Jersey. This particular incident didn’t involve child protection – but sadly, it’s the very self-same syndrome behind this episode.

“Lenny Harper: What I found particularly distasteful was the involvement of some of the local politicians, who sided with corrupt Police officers and their associates, even to the extent of interfering in the charging process.

I think it's fairly well documented that we were due to charge this businessman, and we were due to charge him with an offence which he admitted under oath in court, in which he admitted inciting a Police Officer to carry out illegal checks on computer systems. We eventually got the authority from the legal advisors to charge him with the offence of inciting this Police Officer to commit the illegal computer transactions. We were due to charge him at six o'clock one evening. At five thirty, two local politicians who were friends of his went to see the Attorney General. As a result of that we received a phone call from the Attorney General instructing us not to charge.

BBC: Do you know that it was a result of that, or is that just your belief?

Lenny Harper: Yes I've had conversations with the Attorney General about it. The consequence was that we received instruction not to charge.These two politicians had been involved throughout this series of enquiries and in fact were two of the politicians who criticised us for wasting public money.

BBC: Are they still in government? Are they still active politicians?

Lenny Harper: They're still active politicians, yes.

So – here is your question:

Who were the two politicians referred to by Lenny?

The two politicians who so easily gained full co-operation and compliance from Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache – when it came to the leveraged abandonment of charges – which the man had already admitted under oath in court?

Quote:

Jersey child abuse victims’ interests have been ‘sacrificed’

The former head of the Jersey child abuse investigation yesterday said the ability to secure justice for the victims had been "sacrificed".

Lenny Harper retired from his role as deputy chief officer of the States of Jersey Police last month after two years leading one of Britain's biggest child abuse inquiries.

He told BBC News: "I think the victims' interests have been sacrificed for whatever reason, and I don't have an answer to that, but I think that interests of the victims have been sacrificed for some reason, and that there has been a marked reluctance to vigorously pursue the allegations to their natural conclusion in court."

Mr Harper, who has retired to Ayrshire has been highly critical of the island's legal system, claiming it delayed prosecutions.

After his retirement he said victims would give statements and his team would put together a file, but then they would run into "inexplicable delays".

He said they felt like "the goalposts were being moved" and the decision-making process for the Jersey legal system appeared to be "whenever, wherever".

Mr Harper has also been critical of warnings from Jersey's Attorney General, William Bailhache QC, that extensive media coverage may have jeopardised future court proceedings.

He told BBC News: "Whenever you've got allegations that children's bodies may be disposed of at a care home and you find bones, some of them burnt, and you find children's teeth, that's not a matter any police force in the UK would hide."

More than 100 former residents at Haut de la Garenne have alleged that they were physically and sexually abused. The remains of five children were found.

So far three people have been charged and are awaiting trial on the island.

Mr Harper has said that had they not run into so many delays more people could be going through the courts.

A spokesman for Jersey's Attorney General said: "The Attorney hopes that he has already made it clear that he does not consider it appropriate to enter into a discussion with Mr Harper through the media about events which took place while Mr Harper was employed in the States of Jersey Police.

"He can't do so for legal reasons in relation to existing or prospective prosecutions, the detail of which he is obviously unable to share with the public at this stage."

However, a further statement, issued jointly by the Attorney General and the States of Jersey Police, said: "We would absolutely refute any suggestion that there has been any lack of integrity in the prosecution process."

I DO not wish to get involved in any political arguments about the relative merits of the islands’ legal systems, nor do I wish to get involved in a slanging match with the chief minister, but there are a number of points in his letter which need challenging, writes Lenny Harper (pictured).

Firstly, I would challenge his view on the priorities of all those involved.

Although the two Home Affairs ministers in Jersey were unstinting in their support for the enquiry, the minister and his assistant who had responsibility for child welfare spent all of their time sniping at the enquiry from the sidelines and engaging in petty insults to officers involved by sending childish emails to States colleagues.

According to the journalist, David Rose, one of them leaked an official States email to him and one of them or the small band of politicians sympathetic to them, called the victims ‘people with criminal records and disturbed minds’.

Someone in the States leaked to the media that the enquiry had cost £6m. when in fact it was half that and the other half consisted of other departments claiming costs, including somewhere in the region of over £1m. for legal fees.

This is also in an environment where, in the presence of the Home Affairs minister, a senior politician tried to instruct me to remove the word, ‘victims’, from a press release as ‘nothing has been proved yet’.

The Home Affairs minister, as she has been throughout, was supportive of our stance and I refused.

Let me make it clear that only the two Home Affairs ministers have continually supported the investigation in public and in private.

The chief minister made whatever resources were needed available and stated so publicly early on. A number of politicians approached me privately and expressed support and thanks but for whatever reason did not feel they could do so publicly.

A small number could not disguise their hatred of what was being uncovered and did all they could to discredit us, even joining forces with a number of corrupt ex-cops and their associates.

The chief minister is also wide of the target when he states that it is not unusual for lawyers to join police investigation teams in the UK and Jersey.

Lawyers and police work together as investigators in serious fraud cases in both jurisdictions, such as the Serious Fraud Office. Police investigators work closely with CPS lawyers in the UK, but the lawyers are not investigators and only have a role in police stations in charge rooms.

However, that is not what was being asked by the Attorney General in Jersey. What he wanted was a blurring of the role between investigator and prosecutor. He wanted a lawyer sitting in the incident room where raw data in the form of intelligence and information was coming in.

This was nowhere near the stage where a file was being drawn up for submission for possible prosecution. This was a live police investigation where sensitive intelligence was being provided by victims highly suspicious of the legal establishment in Jersey.

Some of the intelligence provided contained allegations against members of the legal establishment. To have allowed one of the AG’s lawyers in the incident room would have totally destroyed the hard-earned confidence that the police had gained from the victims. If you are in any doubt about this ask some of the victims or their representatives.

Furthermore, as much of the material did not relate to pending prosecutions, it is debatable whether or not the AG and his staff had a right to even see it. That is why I took the stand I did.

I emphasise that I am not accusing the AG of any dubious motive. I have no evidence as to what his motivation was, nor why he thought it was proper to seek the arrangement he did. Only he knows that.

I did not leak my report to The Times newspaper and I do not know who did. I did not even speak to the paper. However, the article was accurate in everything it said about the report which I had written.

If the chief minister thinks that state of affairs shows a relationship based on trust and mutual aims to help victims, then he is looking at it from a different perspective from me and, I suspect, many others.

I note that the States of Jersey has said that the leaked memo was genuine. I can confirm that from what I saw. Someone, a politician I believe, said that the source of the leak was being investigated.

I hope that more effort is expended on investigating this leak than was when the States Police complained to the chief minister’s office of the leaking of an official email by Senator Perchard (the minister responsible for child protection) to Mr Rose, the anti-historical abuse investigation journalist.

Mr Rose admitted that Senator Perchard had leaked the email to him and we complained, but the allegation seems to have been buried without trace in the chief minister’s office.

'Police will today reveal that NO murders took place at a notorious former children’s home in Jersey. In an extradordinary step, officers probing the deaths of up to six youngsters at the Haute de la Garenne home will tell a news conference that ‘nobody was killed.’ The officers, brought in from English forces following the retirement of Jersey’s deputy police chief Lenny Harper in August, are also expected to ridicule all suggestions that the home had turned into ‘some kind of House of Horrors.’

"Senior Northumbria Police Officer David Warcup....or his very close mate David Jewell who was recently re-instated to the Force. ..."
www.policeabuseofpower.co.uk/43404.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*v al*

Well – it had to happen, didn’t it?
Leopards don’t change their spots – and so it is with the Jersey Police.

Following decades upon decades of appalling child abuse – during which the Jersey Police were plainly a significant part of the problem – to the extent that they went beyond merely perverting the course of justice by covering things up, to actually having amongst their number several child abusers – Danny Wherry, for example - it looked as though things had changed.

For a few brief months, maybe a year or so – it looked as though the culture of concealment had been broken by the decency and commitment of Lenny Harper.

But Lenny’s retirement date arrived, and he departed Jersey’s shores.

A very substantial number of the survivors, whistle-blowers and campaigners like me were filed with trepidation at the prospect of Lenny leaving – fearing that things would rapidly revert to the Bad Old Days.

But, nevertheless, hope remained; perhaps the changes initiated by Lenny had been so great that there was no reversing them. So the replacements were given a chance.

Sadly – yet, I guess, predictably – the co-ordinated back-peddling being displayed could have won for Britain a gold medal in going-in-reverse cycling, had the Olympics had such an event.

Notwithstanding the clear impossibility of the task – the Police and their customary Jersey oligarchy friends and allies – who they’ve kissed-and-made-up-with – are attempting to get the djinn back in the bottle.

Such a vast, carefully co-ordinated and heavily media-managed attempted cover-up is a wonder to behold.

I’ll try and explain some of what’s going on.

Truly – you just couldn’t make it up.

Firstly – the States of Jersey Police Force are holding a major press-conference tomorrow.

This will be followed by a wonderfully choreographed second press-conference which will be given by Jersey’s Chief Minister and the Home Affairs Minister at 2.00.

I’m going to be available at about 3.15 in the Royal Square if any journalists (not the local hacks, obviously dur!) wants to get my take on things.

A little quiz for regular readers of my blog:

Why do you think these two press conferences are happening tomorrow?

Why the sudden panic?

Why the burning need to manufacture a hi-profile story right at this particular moment?

You don’t need to be a senior player in Burson Marsteller to figure it out – do you?

The Jersey oligarchy need – desperately – really, really need - a big diversionary storm to marginalise and distract attention away from the publication of the independent report of the Howard League for Penal Reform – which, it just so happens, is to be launched by the Howard League at a press-conference in Jersey this coming Friday.

Clever, no?

No – actually; pretty thick. This kind of spin-doctoring works, of course, with the Jersey hacks – who will fall for it hook, line and sinker.

But so crassly obvious is this stunt that some UK journalists who have contacted me are already falling about laughing at it.

Why the need to marginalise and distract attention from the Howard League report?

The Howard League has undertaken a detailed, independent investigation into youth justice and child custody issues in Jersey. A study which has examined the evidence, looked at the law, spoken with victims and whistle-blowers – and – particularly problematically for the Jersey oligarchy – the era they’ve been examining is comparatively recent............

If Warcup goes for Harper, as it looks like he is, who will go for the evil nonces? Absolutlely crystal clear now that Warcup is an establishment plant. Am I the only one who expects better? Warcup's cavalier approach to justice seems almost to be inviting a lynch mob to take over the running of this case. Must check senator Stuart Syvret's blog later.

Jersey probe officer faces Secrets Act investigation
By Deborah McAleese - Tuesday, 23 December 2008
The Northern Ireland police officer who headed up a major Jersey child abuse probe is being investigated under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a memo criticising Jersey’s Attorney General.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/jersey-probe-off icer-faces-secrets-act-investigation-14118781.html
Lenny Harper’s successor, Jersey’s Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup, has asked UK police officers to investigate if Mr Harper leaked a private memo to Jersey’s Attorney General detailing his concerns about the collapse of prosecution proceedings against certain suspects.
The memo outlined Mr Harper’s belief that the Attorney General’s office was attempting to obstruct the police inquiry into historical child abuse on the island and was submitted as evidence in a High Court case.
Officers are attempting to establish if the Londonderry man was responsible for the alleged leak and are understood to be pursuing the matter under the Official Secrets Act.
It is believed that a number of journalists have been asked by Sussex police to reveal if the memo had been leaked to them by Mr Harper.
“The document in question was actually lodged with the High Court in London some months back. The document was produced as evidence in the proceedings in the High Court and was subsequently reported in the media. My presumption is that the media obtained it from there,” Mr Harper told the Belfast Telegraph.
A spokeswoman for Jersey States Police confirmed that Mr Warcup ordered an investigation into the alleged leak, but said no further details could be given at present.
Mr Harper is due to give evidence in the High Court in London next month about obstructions he claims he faced while trying to bring cases to court during his time at the helm of the child abuse investigation.
The legal action was launched in August by a campaign group that says it does not have confidence in the island’s authorities.
The island’s attorney general has said criticism of its justice system was “misplaced”.
“The courts of Jersey have been delivering justice week in, week out for centuries. Justice will be done,” he has said._________________www.rethink911.orgwww.actorsandartistsfor911truth.orgwww.mediafor911truth.orgwww.pilotsfor911truth.orgwww.mp911truth.orgwww.ae911truth.orgwww.rl911truth.orgwww.stj911.orgwww.l911t.comwww.v911t.orgwww.thisweek.org.ukwww.abolishwar.org.ukwww.elementary.org.ukwww.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/

Below is a pretty self-explanatory – albeit lengthy – e-mail to Mr Warcup – as of yesterday morning, Jersey’s acting Chief Constable – and his sidekick, Mr. Gradwell – the officer now leading the investigations into the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster.

I will leave the e-mail from me to speak for itself; but a few preliminary observations.

In collusion with Jersey’s establishment politicians, Warcup & Gradwell used yesterday to set about trashing the work of the historical child abuse investigation team, the enquiry, the evidence, witness testimony – and in particular, Lenny Harper.

As I predicted – this call to arms by the Jersey oligarchy was enthusiastically met by Jersey’s indigenous media.

For example – I watched the Channel Island’s independent TV network this evening (known as Rankine Television) – and virtually every one of the dopey hacks participating in their OTT coverage repeated – mantra-like – “the previous claims and evidence have now been proven to have been false!”

The whinge from the media is:

“we were mislead by that nasty Mr. Harper who made assertions to us – which we took at face value – but for which, at the time, we were shown no actual, detailed evidential reports.”

Question?

How many Jersey hacks – do you suppose – have recognised the fact – for it is a fact – that the stuff they were fed with yesterday by Warcup, Gradwell, Walker and Lewis – is actually far worse than anything allegedly said by Harper, in terms of being nebulous?

Notwithstanding repeated efforts by me to gain answers to some key questions over a period of some weeks, you have both steadfastly refused to respond to me - even with so much as an e-mail of acknowledgment.

However - given that you both willingly became public components of a political spin-campaign, which was mounted yesterday by yourselves and Jersey establishment politicians - you must both, surely, now recognise that it is no longer credible for you to refuse to answer the questions I ask on behalf of my constituents?

To persist in refusing to communicate with me would now constitute an even bigger example of politicised and biased behaviour than that which you displayed yesterday.

You will - no doubt - have read my blog postings on these issues, so some of the questions I have raised there I will be putting directly to you in this e-mail. But I will begin with some additional questions.

BUT IN PARTICULAR IT IS QUESTIONS 22 TO 37 - WHICH DEAL WITH RADIONUCLIDE TESTING - THAT I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO.

1: You chose to issue a 5 page press-statement - one couldn’t credibly describe it as a 'report' - which consists largely of unevidenced assertions, a number of lacunae, a great deal of overtly political spin, some clearly misleading errors, some issues which are rapidly and glibly skated over, misrepresentations of what has actually been said in the past, and a number of diversionary and irrelevant issues.

A number of journalists have agreed with me that the approach you have both displayed in issuing such a blend of politically motivated spin, misleading assertions, and wilful and deliberate misrepresentations of previous comments - is - as a matter of obvious fact - far worse than the very supposed errors in approach and methodology you criticise Mr. Harper for.

In fact - far worse - because your comments have been plainly politicised and co-ordinated with the establishment politicians in the desperate political attempts to divert attention away from the report of the Howard League for Penal Reform - which, I'm given to understand - concludes that the so-called "Grand Prix" regime of punitive and coercive solitary confinement - which could see children being kept in solitary confinement for weeks and months at a stretch - was unambiguously abusive and illegal. Contrary to all Jersey oligarchy assertions.

Please explain why you engaged in such a politically motivated attack upon the previous investigation, why you did so on the basis of empty assertions - and no published evidence - and why there are so many obvious flaws in your 5 page document?

2: You and your political allies, in a carefully co-coordinated PR stunt, have now shown to the world that you are not "non-political police officers" - focused only on the investigation - but are, instead, highly politically partisan.

For example - no matter that the approach adopted by Mr. Harper has been condemned by yourselves and your political allies - he kept press-conferences and public pronouncements entirely within the bounds of policing - and did not engage in the partisan, political alignment with senior political figures - of the kind you both displayed yesterday.

Given that you have - effectively - destroyed your credibility by displaying such overt politicisation - could you explain how you imagine survivors, whistle-blowers and real journalists can now regard you both as anything other than political components of the Jersey oligarchy apparatus?

3: Who actually authored the 5 page press-release which was issued by you both?

4: Why does it contain so many brazen misrepresentations of what was actually said by Mr. Harper - as opposed to what may have been said by some parts of the media?

5: Why does it repeat certain statements made by Mr. Harper - as though they were your own - and thus imply that what Mr. Harper had said was somehow completely different?

6: Given that much of the overt criticism of his approach made by you both - and your political allies - alleges that Mr. Harper was "premature" in his various announcements - that some of the evidence was not yet firmed-up - how can you consider it even faintly credible for you to have been briefing against Mr Harper for weeks - and making your public pronouncements yesterday - when neither of you - or your review team from the Met - have carried out even an initial interview with Mr. Harper? Not one?

If there have been any 'premature' announcements during the whole investigation - the general view amongst survivors, and it is a view I share - is that your exercise yesterday has been by far the worst.

7: Though very cleverly and equivocally worded, the clear purpose of your press statement is to convey the notion - as though it were demonstrated fact - that there were no unexplained child deaths at HDLG - nor any attempts made there to dispose of human remains. You use such phrases as "do not indicate", and "nor is it believed" - thus providing yourselves with equivocal 'get-out' clauses.

I very much hope - as I have done throughout this aspect of the Jersey Child Abuse Disaster - that we could prove to ourselves that there had definitely been no unexplained child deaths at HDLG. Which is why I am deeply concerned with the fact that you have appeared to make your assertions on the basis of a few pages of deeply politicised PR material - and a few PowerPoint slides - as opposed to detailed examples of peer-reviewable evidence. Evidence which could, presumably, be made public - now that the possibility of child deaths has been dismissed by you both - and your political bosses?

Presumably - as you are both such consummate professionals - as opposed to Mr. Harper - who you would have us believe rushed into making premature and misleading statements - all conceivable scientific and forensic tests have now been completed?

That you now have - in peer-reviewable form - a definitive set of scientific documents which completely discount the possibility of any unexplained child deaths - and any attempt to dispose of human remains?

8: Is it not the case that if the answer to the last paragraph of question 7 is, 'no' - you have committed a grossly premature blunder - far worse than any Mr. Harper is alleged to have made?

9: Are you really quite certain that the items referred to as shackles were not, in fact, ever used for such purposes?

After all - iron implements which may have been used as improvised shackles would, indeed, be "rusty lumps of metal" - after laying in the ground for 30 years.

What of the bed-spring which has plainly been straightened - and had the two end-loops adapted in such a manner as they could have been used to restrain human wrists or ankles?

10: Are you really quite certain that there is "no witness evidence or intelligence" which describes these items as possible shackles? Because that is not my understanding of what the police have been told in certain statements.

11: Again - your press-statement strives to give the impression that the bath under the floor voids was never used in any offence or offences against children - but the wording you choose is very careful and equivocal when you say "there is nothing suspicious about the bath".

Of themselves - baths are not customarily suspicion-raising items.

But are you confidently able to state that the bath was not used in any offences against children - and that you have "no indication" that it was used in any offences? If so, is this not somewhat surprising when you have witness testimony which accurately described the bath in the voids and the uses to which it was put?

12: Your references to the space beneath the floor being voids - and as being of insufficient height to enable an adult to stand up in - is one of the examples of irrelevant, diversionary and misleading twaddle in your press statement. No one - to the best of my knowledge - has ever claimed these spaces were high.

So why put this irrelevant and diversionary assertion in your press statement?

Are you seriously attempting to suggest that because an adult in these voids would have to bend down a little - that fact renders the abuse of children in these spaces somehow impossible?

That it is only physically possible for an adult to abuse a child when the adult is stood in a fully upright position?

13: The most serious, evidential material which emerges from the search are the 65 teeth. Yet you skate around this is in 5-and-bit brief lines of text.

Are you seriously suggesting that finding such a concentration of human teeth in one location - a quite mystifying find - can be brushed aside in one, brief paragraph?

But even what is said in your paragraph could hardly be described as a confident dismissal of the possibility of foul play being behind this discovery.

The teeth come from children - possibly a large number of children - who's age-range may have been between 6 to 12 years. "There is 'wear' on 'some' of the teeth"; is this fact not a matter of concern? If signs of wear exist on 'some' of the teeth - but not on others - does that not suggest a most curious set of circumstances - which would lead to a significant number of human teeth being discovered - with no appreciable signs of wear?

14: Have all of the bone fragments been subjected to multi-laboratory, independent testing, when attempting to determine whether they're human or animal? If not - why not?

What methodology was used in assessing the age-range you quote for the bone fragments?

15: Have all the bone-fragments been subjected to radionuclide dating - which would demonstrate whether the remains come from animals or people who were living before - or after - the dawning of the nuclear weapons age?

16: Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you duck around the issue of the two mystifying pits - in one-and-a-half lines of text in your press release?

Why would the institution commission a man with a digger to come and excavate two holes in the grounds - with the instruction to come back the next day and fill them back in again - once a layer of lime had been placed in the bottom?

Even though these pits - in your own words - "are unexplained" - you still feel sufficiently confident to deliver a political press conference dismissing their relevance - even though this problematic and deeply mysterious feature remains totally unexplained?

You assert "nothing suspicious was found in them" - but surely the greatest "suspicion" that arises from these two pits is the actual fact of their bizarre construction and existence?

17: In your summary, you list 5 bullet points in which you seek to dismiss and discredit the notion that any murders may have taken place. The five bullet-points in your press release are:

• No people are reported missing

• There are no allegations of murder.

• There are no suspects for murder.

• There is no specific time period for murder.

• We are satisfied that there is no indication or evidence that there have been murders at HDLG.

Do you not accept that the first 4 of these bullet points are simply statements of the obvious - and could apply to a 1000 examples of potential crimes, such as murder, which are initially not evidenced - nor even apparent - but are subsequently shown to have occurred?

In respect of the 5th bullet point, do you not accept that absence of evidence - is not evidence of absence? And do you not accept that notwithstanding your assertion - there remain a number of deeply mystifying and concerning issues in respect of HDLG? For example - the 65 human teeth, the unexplained pits excavated in the grounds one day - then filled-in the next?

Could you explain to me how the claims made in those five bullet points contradict what was said by Mr. Harper? Because, going from memory, I do not recollect him ever making statements which contradict the views expressed in the bullet points?

On the contrary - my recollection is that Mr. Harper was always careful to draw a distinction between saying what possibly may have occurred - those possibilities being the point of the investigation - and statements which categorically said "we have murders"?

18: Remaining with the subject of your bullet-point summary - you state "no people are reported missing". As police officers, you cannot claim ignorance of the interpretation that people will place on this statement - which will be that - 'oh, that's OK then - because if no one is missing - there can have been no murders.'

I know this - so I'm quite certain you both must know it as well - it is entirely feasible for children to have disappeared - for there have even been no official record of their existence. Do you accept that that is so?

Do you agree that vulnerable children - especially orphans - who may have been moved around the country in, say the 1950's, 1960's and even 1970's - could very easily have vanished off the radar-screen - especially given how poor to non-existent record keeping was then?

19: Why do you make the particular assertions concerning Jersey's Crown Officers - when it is a matter of documented, public record, that the Attorney General, William Bailhache, did obstruct the charging of certain individuals - just as he has failed to extradite certain suspects?

20: Do you not consider you own credibility to be at risk - well, what little of it remains - in being quite so friendly with an Attorney General who is hopelessly conflicted in these matters - because he was the senior partner in the law firm which, in 1998, was - supposedly - representing the interest of the victims of the abusers who he will not now extradite - at the time of the second (judicial) cover-up of that case?

Do you not consider that this monstrous and brazen conflict of interests should have made him withdraw from any involvement in these cases?

21: Given the unevidenced assertions you both have made in yesterday's politically motivated stunt - combined with the glib, brief assertion made in your press release that "There will, however, not be the number of court cases or prosecutions which were originally reported" - do you fail to see just how catastrophically you have damaged the trust of survivors and whistle blowers in the investigations?

Perhaps that was, precisely, your intention?

I will now turn to the subject of radionuclide dating - this being an area of enquiry I have been - unsuccessfully - pursuing with the States of Jersey Police for many weeks.

There is a central – and definitive question – which arises from the human remains found at the site – fragments of human bone and around 65 teeth.

Were the individuals who these remains originated from living in the period prior to WW II – perhaps even far earlier?

Or – were they living in the post-WW II era?

In modern decades?

Are the remains pre-war – or are they post-war?

For this – central - question has been at the heart of the debate over the remains.

Why is this question important?

If the remains predate World War II – whilst still something of a mystery – we would then be justified setting aside the concerns we have that children may have died through foul play at Haut de la Garenne during modern times.

However – if the remains originate post- WW II – then we, as a community, have to confront the possibilities of what may have happened to vulnerable children in HDLG.

For if we are faced with the knowledge that the remains originated from people who were living, say, during the 1950’s, 1960’s or 1970’s - Jersey faces an altogether more serious – and deeply disturbing - situation.

This is why that simple question – are the remains pre-war – or post-war – is so important.

If pre-war – we can gain some form of “closure”.

But if post-war – we cannot so easily set the matter aside.

But to gain that "closure", we need - I need - hard evidence; evidence that is reasonable, and within the bounds of being practically able to be produced.

Deeply disturbingly, the States of Jersey Police Force has - so far - refused to state whether these tests have been carried out – notwithstanding repeated questions from me.

You both - Mr. Warcup and Mr. Gradwell - will now - presumably - have no difficulty in answering the questions - now that you've shown yourselves ready and willing to engage with politicians?

I will describe some of the forensic tests which would need to be carried out in order to make us reasonably confident that none of the children’s teeth found on the site originate from the post-war years.

Human remains - such as bones and teeth – can be readily assessed as originating pre-war – or as originating post-war – because of the use of nuclear weapons.

From the first megaton nuclear explosions – and for a sustained period during the 1950’s and 1960’s – the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons spread around the world a range of novel, radioisotopes which, prior to the nuclear weapons era – were present in the Earth only in minute quantities – or were not present at all, instead being the ‘man-made’ isotopes introduced into the atmosphere via nuclear bomb detonations.

Traces of these novel, radioactive substances are now found in all of us – in our bones, our teeth and other parts of the body.

By way of contrast – if a person was living, and died, before the onset of the nuclear weapons era – no internal contamination with these novel isotopes would be found within that individual's bones and teeth.

Therefore – testing for radioisotope contamination of human bones and teeth is widely recognised as a forensic method of determining whether the remains are pre, or post the nuclear weapons age.

Due to my environmental campaigning against nuclear installations, I have specialist contacts who have been able to furnish me with some observations and questions concerning radionuclide contamination.

22: Plutonium 239 is a man-made transuranic – with a half-life of 24,100 years.

Small traces of Pu239 would have been distributed to a limited extent through the very early nuclear detonations of 1945. However, Pu239 will not have been heavily and widely distributed through the atmosphere until the first megaton explosions around 1952 or possibly later, through to the 1960’s.

It is, therefore, possible to test for the internal presence of Pu239 in bones and teeth and conclude – definitively – whether the remains come from people who were living after the dawn of the nuclear weapons era.

Pre-war – no such internal contamination with this isotope would be found.

Post-war – especially if the individual were living in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s – then yes, such internal contamination would be present in teeth and bones.

Has this test been carried out? If so – will the scientific papers be published in peer-reviewable format?

If not – why not?

23: Strontium 90, I am told, would be an even better ‘tag’ for determining whether human remains such as bones and teeth were from the modern era. This isotope was also spread throughout the planet’s atmosphere via nuclear weapons testing from 1952.

The highest levels of this contaminant would originate from the years 1960 to 1965.

Strontium 90 is also easier to detect and analyse than Pu239 – especially in bone fragments.

Have these tests been done? If so – can the papers be published?

If not – why not?

24: Carbon 14, although occurring naturally – was very widely distributed – in a heavily detectable ‘spike’ of contamination, during the period, mid-1950 until mid-1960.

However, I’m told that the detection or measuring of Carbon 14 is more challenging as it has to be done by concentration, which can prove problematic.

But nevertheless, man-made volumes of Carbon 14 appearing in human bones and teeth are used as a measure to approximately date the remains to the pre – or post – nuclear weapons era, by forensic anthropologists.

Have tests for anthropogenic quantities of Carbon 14 been undertaken?

If so – can we have the scientific papers?

If not – why not?

25: We can be categorically certain that any human remains which have internal contamination of the above-described isotopes originate from people who were alive during the nuclear weapons era. Do either of you dispute this?

If so - please explain your argument?

26: In the event of bones being burnt, it is strongly probable that any Strontium 90 would remain incorporated within the bone-matrix. Do either of you dispute this?

27: Burning any human remains would be most unlikely to remove or destroy the radio isotopes described above. Do you agree?

28: The sample size required to test for Strontium 90 or Plutonium 239, I am told, is around 20 grams – perhaps 3 or 4 teeth, or a similar weight of bone. Do you dispute this? If so - please explain why?

29: Many labs would undertake testing for Strontium 90 and Plutonium 239. Do you agree that laboratories capable of undertaking these tests are readily identifiable?

30: My understanding is that it would costs around £300 to undertake alpha spectrometry to detect Pu239 in a few teeth. Could the States of Jersey Police Force afford this sum - or might that mean eating into the Chief Minister's £300,000 budget for spin-doctors?

31: A similar sum would be required to fund the chemical separation and Beta spectrometry needed to detect and measure Strontium 90 within teeth or bone matrix. Maybe a little more costly - but again, presumably if the Attorney General who earns approaching £300,000 per annum can be given a free parking place - we could scrape the funds together somehow?

32: If the tests I describe above – which are crucial to determine that key question – are the remains pre-war or post-war – have, in fact, been carried out – why the secrecy?

33: If the tests have not been carried out – why not?

34: If the radionuclide tests I describe above - or similar such tests - have not been carried out - do you recognise that it will appear in the eyes of many - that your political press-conference of yesterday - would be the most disastrously premature and ill-judged action the SOJP will have displayed since the beginning of this entire episode?

As I have said throughout this whole episode – I really hope for such definitive, scientific evidence which would show that the human remains did not originate from the post-war era.

But I do not believe we can gain “closure” on the question of whether the human remains recovered from Haute de la Garenne are pre-war – or post war – until such tests have been undertaken – and the results published in peer-reviewable form.

I hope very much that all such tests would prove to be negative.

But they simply have to be carried out.

35: Have they been?

36: If so – where are the peer-reviewable results?

37: If not – why are the Jersey establishment so indecently - and prematurely - ready to seize upon a few vacuous sound-bites, five pages of rubbish cobbled together by a spin-doctor, and some PowerPoint slides - as grounds for dismissing the whole episode?

“It is concerning that there have been no more arrests or any progress in the case,” he said.
The Jersey Police Complaints Authority is currently investigating a formal complaint lodged by Mr Harper about comments made by his successor Deputy Chief Officer David Warcup and Detective Superintendent Michael Gradwell at a recent Press conference.
During the media briefing Mr Warcup attacked Mr Harper’s inquiry. He said there were no suspicious deaths at the former children's home Haut de la Garenne and that the investigation was not conducted properly.
However, Mr Harper said the comments “grossly and deliberately or negligently,” misrepresented views and statements made by him to the media.
“I believe all this nonsense is to discredit me and to set me up to take the fall. There has been no more progress in the case so I really think this is all about finding someone to take the blame,” he said.
Mr Harper also told the Belfast Telegraph he recently received a “bizarre” letter from Mr Warcup requesting the return of any unused documents relating to the case.
“I have no unused material whatsoever. I have nothing which is relevant to the inquiry. This letter was very puzzling and a little disturbing. I can only think of two possible reasons — one that it is an attempt to intimidate me just before I give evidence in the High Court or two, that it is an attempt to set the scene to blame me for any discontinuation of proceedings. In light of all that has been happening I believe I am being set up to take the blame if no charges are brought.”

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum